Nelson v. Toyota Motor Corporation

── Nelson v. Toyota Motor Corporation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-1408 Document: 58 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 1, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WESLEY NELSON, by and through his conservator and guardian, Amy Nelson, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-1408 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03119-NYW-KAS) TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a (D. Colo.) foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, KELLY, Circuit Judge, and HEIL, ** Chief District Judge. _________________________________ In this diversity suit, Plaintiff-Appellant Wesley Nelson appeals from the district court’s judgment upholding a jury verdict in favor of Defendant-Appellee Toyota Motor Corporation on his strict liability manufacturing defect claim. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** The Honorable John F. Heil, Chief District Judge of the United States District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.  Appellate Case: 24-1408 Document: 58 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 2 Specifically, Mr. Nelson argues the record contains substantial evidence to support overturning the jury’s verdict and therefore the district court erred by sustaining it. However, Mr. Nelson’s noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 in the district court forecloses his sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument on appeal. We, therefore, decline to consider the merits of his argument. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s judgment for Toyota. I We begin by recounting the relevant facts 1 and procedural history, with a particular emphasis on Mr. Nelson’s failure to adhere to Rule 50’s two-step procedure. A On October 25, 2018, Dennis Bender was driving his Toyota RAV4 in Adams County, Colorado. Mr. Nelson was a passenger in the front seat. Cecile Bender, Mr. Bender’s wife, was a passenger in the back seat. While driving over the speed limit, Mr. Bender suffered a diabetic episode. He lost control of the RAV4—crossing over the centerline and veering into oncoming traffic. As this was happening, Mrs. Bender powered off the RAV4’s ignition. Ultimately, the RAV4 swerved off the road, traveled down an embankment, crashed into a utility pole, and rolled over. During the crash, the airbags and seatbelt 1 In crafting our background statement, we recite “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Pratt v. Petelin, 7